This retrospective study compares four different strategies for managing poor ovarian response (POR), namely, conventional stimulation (300 IUs) IVF-fresh embryo transfer (CONVF), mild stimulation (150 IUs) IVF-fresh embryo transfer (MILDF), mild stimulation embryo banking (MILDB), and embryo banking in natural cycles (NATB). In total, 796 POR patients were considered eligible. Statistical analysis revealed a shorter duration of stimulation and a lower required amount of gonadotropins in MILDF compared with CONVF (9.34 ± 1.17 versus 10.37 ± 1.14; 1402 ± 176 versus 3110 ± 343, P < 0.001). Comparing MILDF and MILDB, a higher number of available oocytes and embryos was observed in MILDB (2.36 ± 1.15 versus 6.58 ± 1.11; 1.72 ± 1.02 versus 3.51 ± 0.61, P < 0.001). Moreover, the MILDB presented with a lower number of required oocyte retrievals and a higher number of oocytes per oocyte retrieval compared with NATB (3.90 ± 1.56 versus 7.15 ± 1.80; 1.95 ± 0.74 versus 0.89 ± 0.20, P < 0.001). Data indicate that MILDF is equally efficient and associated with a shorter duration of stimulation and a lower required amount of gonadotropins compared with CONVF. Embryo accumulation may be more efficient compared with a fresh embryo transfer. MILDB may be a more efficient approach compared with NATB. To conclude, embryo accumulation following mild stimulation appears to form the optimal strategy for POR management. More studies are needed to verify these conclusions.
Keywords: conventional stimulation; embryo accumulation; mild stimulation; natural cycle; ovarian stimulation; poor ovarian response.
© 2021 New York Academy of Sciences.